All he admitted was that he shared beds with kids, not that he molested them.

My favorite quote in the article is 'Thanks to America's reverence for freedom of speech, nothing can stop jurors discussing in public how they reached their verdict and the Jackson 12, as they have been dubbed, did not let the press down' like freedom of speech is something not to be revered.

Above you suggest that there are no consequences for rapists, that they're off the hook and not prosecuted because it's difficult to make a rape charge stick.

It is extremely difficult to make a rape charge stick in even the most seemingly obvious cases. Police and prosecuters find it one of the most frustrating crimes to deal with. It is the most unreported of crimes and usually the victims who do come forward drop the charges becaue they can't go through the court ordeal, but when they're brave enough to go through with it, it's extremely difficult to get a guilty verdict. Police often see the same man accused again and again, but they are helpless to put these guys behind bars.

Juries are very difficult to convince and make the most bizarre decisions. Take the Jury in Texas that found a man not guilty of rape because the terrified victim (afraid that as well as being raped she might contract AIDS or become pregnant to her rapist) begged and convinced her attacker to wear a condom. The jury decided that because she herself had handed the condom to him, and he had agreed to wear it, it couldn't possibly be rape. Despite the fact that this man had broken into her house at 3:00 a.m. in the morning and attacked her at knifepoint. There are many other examples that could be used to highlight the strange reluctance of juries to convict even in the most seemingly clearcut cases (but I'm not here to write an essay on it).

Gopher wrote:

Now you suggest that because the crime is so horrible, that the additional crime of bearing false witness isn't so bad.

Where have I said that pretending to have been raped is not bad? I think it's a bloody awful thing to do. I would be furious if someone did this to my brother or husband. However, I question your motives for bringing it up.

But now you have me wondering... Your suggestion that being falsely accused of being raped is as bad as being raped is interesting. May I pose this hypothetical question? I'm very curious to know which hypothetical option Gopher would prefer?

a) to be falsely accused of rape by a silly little 17 year old child who subsequently broke down and admitted her lie.

b) to be dragged off the street one night by a 6 foot 7 biker with some anger management issues and built like a brick s__t house, beaten and forced to the ground, horribly humiliated, clothes ripped away and given such a vigorous hammering where the sun don't shine that it would be intolerable to sit down for a week.

c) option b + the subsequent court battle in which said biker walks off scott free because it was pretty clear to the jury that Gopher walking down a dark street after 10 p.m. at night unaccompanied, wearing tight pants and aftershave was clearly just begging for it!

Hmmm...

Gopher wrote:

Your thinking is one-sided and increasingly hysterical.

Hysterical? I doubt that you would have chosen that particular adjective if I had not been female. Your little prejudices are shining through loud and clear. I am very calm believe you me. But you seem to be getting quite emotional yourself. If you are unable to debate without getting so upset, you should stay away from this forum; it's not for the thin skinned.

Gopher wrote:

In rape (and sexual harassment) cases, the burder of proof is almost always inverted so that the accused is presumed guilty.

I beg to differ. I clearly remember that when Jackson was first accused back in the nineties, no-one I knew presumed him guilty (including myself). I was very surprised by the allegations but kept an open mind about whether he was guilty or not. However many friends and acquaintances had little rants about wicked people trying to exhort money from poor innocent Michael. I never recall anyone getting all worked up with an opposite view. The same with Tyson. At that time it was just another news item as far as I was concerned, and he might be innocent or guilty. However, many people I knew , including women, who didn't know any of the details, jumped up and down getting themselves very worked up about this nasty woman trying to her claws into poor Tyson.

Gopher wrote:

There is an undeniable pattern of false accusations in rape, which is not to say that rape does not exist or that it is not a horrible crime, but rather it is not such a black and white issue as you make it out to be.

So what am I being black and white about? Please explain.

But first let me guess what you're getting at. Possibly it's black to attack an innocent virgin on her way to church at knifepoint. And it's a pale shade of grey to rape a naive trusting teenager in a hotel room.

"While Jackson kept a low profile, postings to his official Web site, mjjsource.com, were triumphant in trumpeting his acquittal.

"Innocent," the site declared, flashing dates and the phrases "Martin Luther King is born,""The Berlin Wall falls,""Nelson Mandela is freed," and finally, "June 13, 2005, Remember this date for it is a part of HIStory" — a reference to Jackson's 1995 album "HIStory.""

Posting something like that is just wrong and manipulative. Nelson Mandela spent years in prison as a political prisonner and Martin Luther King was murdered for his political views. Jackson, on the other hand, was accused of molesting a child.